Ramsey

MEMORANDUM *

Tommy Lonnel Ramsey (“Ramsey”) appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his petition for habeas corpus. Ramsey argues in his petition that his conviction should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at both the trial and appellate levels, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and he was wrongfully denied an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

I. Standard of Review

For a writ to issue under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we must find that the state court’s decision was either: (1) contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Barajas v. Wise, 481 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)). Thus, under AEDPA, we employ a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings.” Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 , 333 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997).

The Supreme Court explained in Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991), that for…